For instance, a liberal will make a ridiculous claim, and when asked to back up that claim, they say that another liberal or a liberal media outlet told them. So instead of using unbiased facts, they simply surround themselves by other liberals to try and make themselves look right, even though they aren't. Why do liberals do that?

wish i had a dime for every time a conservative says something ridiculously baseless (for example death panels) and when asked to prove it, they can't. when you tell them that NOWHERE will you find substantiation of their claims (beyond FAUX 'news' and rush limpballs), they cry 'lame stream media'.

wish i had a dime for every time a conservative says something ridiculously baseless (for example death panels) and when asked to prove it, they can't. when you tell them that NOWHERE will you find substantiation of their claims (beyond FAUX 'news' and rush limpballs), they cry 'lame stream media'.

"...the advisory panel, which has the ability to make more or less binding judgments on saying, 'this particular expensive treatment doesn't do any good medically, so we're not going to pay for it...'"

When a lib can't back any of the untrue claims made, and another libs understands this; that lib will support their comrade with encouragement to make it appear they also think there is validity to the claims.

When you chose a path with no morals, no absolutes, no truth it can make for a treacherous journey; for if you should lose your footing there is nothing to hold you up.

As you know from reading the Politics section here:

"When a right-winger can't back any of the untrue claims made, and another right-winger knows it; that right-winger will support their comrade with encouragement to make it appear they also think there is validity to the claims."

I just listened to / read your two sources, and neither indicates anything approaching the claims of those who spread the "death panel" meme during summer '09 . You and other after-the-fact apologists for that smear are trying to pull a switcheroo with your redefinitions. .

For instance, a liberal will make a ridiculous claim, and when asked to back up that claim, they say that another liberal or a liberal media outlet told them. So instead of using unbiased facts, they simply surround themselves by other liberals to try and make themselves look right, even though they aren't. Why do liberals do that?

higgite really can't keep up - he still thinks like it's a century and a half ago..

of course he can't. but hey, he wants to be willfully ignorant and listen to rush 'i dodged the draft with a mystery ailment that somehow didn't keep me from playing football BUT STILL a warhawk' limp*alls, let him.

That's the problem with liberals. They ignore history. They're all so... so... progressive.

and what 'history' is that?

about how conservatives (naw, NEO-conservatives, since there were sane conservatives at one point like rockerfeller) claim that 'trickle down theory' works, when it's been proven time and again (even by the wall street journal, a VERY conservative newspaper) not to work?

i'm not necessarily a 'liberal', by the way...more of a libertarian. i don't want laws limiting gun ownership, but i also don't want the government getting into a woman's right to choose, prohibiting gays from marrying or throwing people in jail just because they lit up a joint (all those things cost money).

unlike many a neo-conservative, i don't contradict myself (you know...the neo conservative 'small government when its stuff i want, big government when it's stuff i don't)?

about how conservatives (naw, NEO-conservatives, since there were sane conservatives at one point like rockerfeller) claim that 'trickle down theory' works, when it's been proven time and again (even by the wall street journal, a VERY conservative newspaper) not to work?

i'm not necessarily a 'liberal', by the way...more of a libertarian. i don't want laws limiting gun ownership, but i also don't want the government getting into a woman's right to choose, prohibiting gays from marrying or throwing people in jail just because they lit up a joint (all those things cost money).

unlike many a neo-conservative, i don't contradict myself (you know...the neo conservative 'small government when its stuff i want, big government when it's stuff i don't)?

So then tell us Mr "libertarian", how small should government be?, I say a 50% reduction to start with.

So then tell us Mr "libertarian", how small should government be?, I say a 50% reduction to start with.

That's no surprise, you are all for the destruction of the US. That is why you secretly cheer for the present administration to continue rather than work at fixing it. You are for neither liberty or protection of this fine country.

__________________"I have no issues with people of all types being here, I do have a problem with the more extreme ends of any spectrum trying to dominate and push out moderates and opposites." Bill Plein

When a lib can't back any of the untrue claims made, and another libs understands this; that lib will support their comrade with encouragement to make it appear they also think there is validity to the claims.

The ends justify the means.

you're just blithering now, aren't you?

oh yeah, never was a 'death panel'. that's a lie the rich conservatives pushed on middle/working class conservatives who were not quite bright enough to see:

So then tell us Mr "libertarian", how small should government be?, I say a 50% reduction to start with.

well, mr 'ask rhetorical questions':

cut back on foreign aid, NEVER get into wars like iraq, when LIES were the cause (you know, bush's team was saying how there were NO wmds in iraq just months before they were magically 'there'...wolfowitz later said it was a 'good excuse to invade' and 'it was the only excuse we could bureaucratically decide upon') of us invading.

hell, foreign aid would save us about $26 billion a year if we cut it down to nothing. iraq cost us, what, $2 TRILLION? that's a helluva savings.

also dont have state or federal government PAYING for drug tests for people getting on public aid.

get rid of the WASTE on the 'war on drugs', which cost the U.S. $15 billion in 2010 and $21 billion this year. $7 BILLION was wasted on arreatesting 800,000 for marijauana alone in 2005 and high school kids said they STILL find it easy to find.

Legalize most drugs, treat them as alcohol, and you TAX DOLLARS going into the BILLIONS of dollars.

So then tell us Mr "libertarian", how small should government be?, I say a 50% reduction to start with.

you randomly saying 'reduce by 50%' is laughably uninformed, unless you can say WHAT you would cut and WHY?

oh yeah...bring tax rates BACK to pre-Bush era levels. the only quick way to bring down the debt is to cut costs AND raise revenue.

get rid of tax loopholes that ONLY benefit the truly rich (yatchs as second homes so you can write off the interest payments? corporate jet loopholes? c'mon). as i stated before, the truly rich suckered working class/middle class 'neo conservatives' into thinking 'trickle down theory' works.

it doesn't. never has. but they chump you into believe that by going all conservative socially...and THIS is where poor/working class/middle class conservatives are:

1) chumped into working for the truly rich that have contempt for them, and;
2) show they REALLY don't want 'small government'.

small minded working class/blue collar and middle class white collar conservatives want 'Christianity' to be the thing, even when the big three 'founding fathers' were 'deists' not 'christians' (jefferson laughed at a virgin mother giving birth to the son of God, washington only went to church to appease his wife, and franklin got books on deism and never went back).

they want small government, but are willing to use federal funds to keep women from getting abortions. (those nutcase southern states and western states like wyoming are actually SPENDING MONEY to keep women from having abortions).

they want small government, but pass laws to keep gays from serving openly in the military and getting married (the government should get OUT of the marriage business, and also drop the 'marriage benefits' on taxes if you want 'small government').

you can't have it both ways, no matter what you cry...you cant have 'small government for me, big government for you' mentality. doesn't work.

cut back on foreign aid, NEVER get into wars like iraq, when LIES were the cause (you know, bush's team was saying how there were NO wmds in iraq just months before they were magically 'there'...wolfowitz later said it was a 'good excuse to invade' and 'it was the only excuse we could bureaucratically decide upon') of us invading.

hell, foreign aid would save us about $26 billion a year if we cut it down to nothing. iraq cost us, what, $2 TRILLION? that's a helluva savings.

also dont have state or federal government PAYING for drug tests for people getting on public aid.

get rid of the WASTE on the 'war on drugs', which cost the U.S. $15 billion in 2010 and $21 billion this year. $7 BILLION was wasted on arreatesting 800,000 for marijauana alone in 2005 and high school kids said they STILL find it easy to find.

Legalize most drugs, treat them as alcohol, and you TAX DOLLARS going into the BILLIONS of dollars.

that's a start.

Wow, americans on dope so they can pay more taxes.

How about we start with this, and every other welfare program we're paying for, such as "sub-prime lending (house a savage), you know, that program that crashed our housing market and economy.

subprime lending and immigrants? you DO know most subprime loans were to legal americans, don't you?

how does marijuana affect anyone any more than alcohol, which is legal?

see, you throwing out rhetorical questions and making empty statements (50% cut in government spending, without saying what) and ignoring the $2 TRILLION war that did nobody but bush/cheney/their cronies any good...you know, 'iraq'...shows that you are just giving empty neo-con tripe.

you have NO idea about the waste in the 'war on drugs', you have no idea how bush added $5-7 TRILLION to the debt with that $2 TRILLION war and the tax cuts, do you?

but go on and 'hate' obama, while leaving cheney/bush and their screw ups alone. i mean, that'll change things won't it.